MORE NEWS, 1-26: NEW ENERGY AND ECO-BLING; WIND TURBINES CAN SAIL THE SEAS; SUN FOR SHOPPERS; NUCLEAR, THE TOO COSTLY ANSWER

NEW ENERGY AND ECO-BLING
Is renewable power "eco-bling"? Report raises question
January 22, 2010 (USA Today)

"…I first heard "green bling" last year when a friend used it to describe the geothermal heating and cooling system she installed in her new, very well insulated home in Falls Church, Va. She said she first heard it in a green-building workshop to describe pricey (unnecessary?) systems.

"…[ Paul McFedries’ Word Spy] defines eco-bling [as]…a noun…’Ineffective green technology, particular equipment added on to an existing building that does little to reduce the building's use of natural resources…’ [and] cites several recent use, including one [in] a new report by the Royal Academy of Engineering that recommends how the United Kingdom can best reach its ambitious goals for cutting [new building] carbon emissions…[to] zero-carbon (produce as much energy as they use) by 2016…"

Only the best efforts at building Energy Efficiency AND New Energy can meet this challenge. (click to enlarge)

"Doug King, the report's author and a visiting professor of building engineering physics at the University of Bath, said it's become fashionable for people to install wind turbines and solar panels on their homes but warned against it…[because] unnecessary renewable energy visibly attached to the outside of poorly designed buildings…[means the building] is just as energy-hungry as every other building…[Putting] wind turbines and solar cells on the outside [to address] a few percent of that building's energy consumption [achieves little]…

"King added that eco-bling seemed to be more about showing off than saving carbon. The solution, he said, was building a well-insulated envelope or exterior and making good use of natural light.

The solution is often a hybrid. (click to enlarge)

"President Obama called insulation ‘sexy’ [recently and cited]… the money that can be saved by retrofitting homes for greater energy efficiency…Homes that need little or no heating and cooling -- and thus no renewable power -- are gaining more attention…[Passive homes]…a concept begun in Germany, are now being built in the United States…

"To be sure, some homes can actually produce more energy than they use by adding solar panels or wind turbines…[A] home may now be a net producer of power, but the homeowner [must use] a lot of insulation to lower…energy needs…"


WIND TURBINES CAN SAIL THE SEAS
Why not floating windmills?; Hart H.S. grad believes they’re the future … His company is working on the technology
Kevin Braciszesski, January 23, 2010 (Ludington Daily News)

"Larry Viterna, Ph.D., worked on wind energy development for many years with NASA and is now working on plans for wind turbines that will float far from shore…

"…[Viterna is strongly in favor of] the current proposal to place wind turbines in Lake Michigan as close as two miles from Silver Lake State Park, where his father, Roy Viterna, worked as park manager from 1967 to 1981…[He thinks offshore wind on the Great Lakes can be very beneficial…[but would like to the wind turbines] 15 to 20 miles off shore…"

Animated simulation of setting an offshore turbine afloat. From lviterna via YouTube

"Viterna said winds are higher farther from shore and said the 300- to 450-foot-tall wind turbines would not be as noticeable from shore…His company, Nautica Windpower, is currently working to develop technology for floating wind turbines that can operate in deep waters far from shore.

"With current technology, Viterna said, it is too expensive to place wind turbines too far from shore and in deep water…[F]loating wind turbines, possibly attached by weights to the lake bottom, need to be developed with less weight to be economically competitive…[H]e expects demand for energy to drive that development."

The Great Lakes' offshore wind assets are among the best in the world. (click to enlarge)

"Viterna also said other Great Lakes communities are now considering installing offshore wind turbines…Cleveland and Cuyahoga County are working on the issue together…New York and Canada are also considering wind turbines in the Great Lakes…The current plan for Michigan’s Lake Michigan waters was proposed by representatives of Scandia Wind and Havgul Clean Energy. It calls for construction of about 100 to 200 wind towers in a 100-square-mile area of Lake Michigan offshore from southern Mason County and northern Oceana County.

"The developers are planning to start their wind turbines only 3.7 miles off the Mason County shore and less than 2 miles off part of Oceana County…Viterna said there is a lot of benefit to moving to wind as a clean energy source, but said it does not have to be intrusive…He believes the Scandia and Havgul representatives are doing the right thing by providing the public with information about their plans."


SUN FOR SHOPPERS
SunEdison, Developers Diversified Begin National Rooftop Solar Program
21 January 2010 (Solar Industry)

"SunEdison, a subsidiary of MEMC Electronic Materials, and Developers Diversified Realty, the owner, manager and developer of a portfolio of shopping centers, have activated five solar power projects in New Jersey. This activation is the first phase of Developers Diversified's national rooftop solar program…

"Last year, SunEdison and Developers Diversified entered into a partnership that gives SunEdison the rights to deploy solar energy systems at more than 130 shopping centers throughout the United States."

The sunlight is free, the space is available and the retailer's overhead comes down, allowing savings to be passed on to customers - what's not to like? (click to enlarge)

"Through SunEdison's REIT Solar Program, Developers Diversified will purchase the energy produced for common-area usage, while earning revenue for solar power production on the leased roof space. In addition, shopping center tenants can opt to purchase the power generated through the program.

"Eight projects in New Jersey are now currently active or under construction. Once these regional sites are all active, they will generate approximately 1.4 million kWh of solar energy in the first year…"


NUCLEAR, THE TOO COSTLY ANSWER
Nuclear Power: Too Costly to Revive; Is nuclear power a solution we can afford? The short answer is no.
Elliot Negin, January 21, 2010 (Greentech Media)
Media director union of concerned scientists

"For several years, the energy industry has been claiming that nuclear power is a green, cost-effective solution for global warming, and now it is asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve 26 new power plant proposals…[S]ome in Congress are calling for the federal government to support the construction of 100 new reactors over the next two decades.

"…[E]xpanding U.S. nuclear power…could help combat climate change…[because it does] not emit carbon dioxide…[B]uilding more could reduce the 50 percent market share held by coal plants…But is nuclear power a solution we can afford? The short answer is no. Even discounting nuclear power's security and safety problems, the cost of construction could be the industry's Achilles' heel."

Too expensive and...(click to enlarge)

"The nuclear industry likes to point out that it has low production costs, which it does…[but it has] rapidly escalating capital costs, those associated with paying the cost of plant construction, including financing. In the past, the industry has benefited from considerable federal and state government subsidies that mask the true cost of the technology, including staggering capital costs and the risk of catastrophic accidents, by shifting these burdens onto taxpayers and ratepayers. The industry is now seeking to shift even more costs and risks onto the public…

"In 2005, Congress authorized $60 billion in loan guarantees for new energy technologies. Of that amount, the Department of Energy (DOE) allocated $18.5 billion for new nuclear plants. But the industry wants more…a minimum of $100 billion in additional loan guarantees on top of the billions it already has been allocated…In the 1960s and 1970s, the industry proposed to build some 200 plants, but as construction costs escalated, only about half were finished. Taxpayers and ratepayers were left footing the bill -- about $300 billion in today's dollars -- for abandoned plants, cost overruns for completed plants, and stranded investments…No energy company has ordered a new plant since 1978, and all plants ordered after 1973 were cancelled."

...One of the least effective ways to fight climate change. (click to enlarge)

"…Investors have stayed away ever since. In 2007, six top investment firms told the DOE in writing that they were unwilling to finance new reactors. Utility executives, meanwhile, will not finance new nuclear plants…Both Wall Street and the industry would consider it, however, if taxpayers assumed the risk…Taxpayers should be skeptical about [loan] guarantees. First, projected construction costs have been spiraling out of control…[Since 2002] projected costs have jumped [from $2-to-3 billion to] as high as $9 billion per unit…Second…the average risk of default on a federal loan guarantee for nuclear plant construction is 50 percent…[T]axpayers could be at risk for as much as $360 billion if 100 plants operating today were replaced with new plants by 2040…

"…[N]ew reactors would be one of the most expensive options for producing "low-carbon" electricity, even ignoring the likelihood of cost overruns…[A] combination of low-carbon energy polices would economically reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation 84 percent by 2030…New nuclear plants would not be an cost-effective part of the generation mix, however…[I]t would be more economical to meet a stringent emissions cap with a mix of energy efficiency, renewable resources, and combined-heat-and-power plants fueled by natural gas…The potential price tag of yet another public bailout of the nuclear industry would dwarf the previous ones. Congress should think twice…The power source that was once promised to be "too cheap to meter" may now be too costly to revive."